Christina Ringo v. Jrw Services Inc, 362342

Plaintiff sued her former employer and supervisor for racial discrimination under the MCRA and Title VII after termination.
Defendant JRW served interrogatories and document requests; plaintiff repeatedly failed to timely or fully respond.
The court entered multiple stipulated and court-ordered deadlines to compel production; plaintiff produced partial supplements and gave explanations (residential move, trouble obtaining SSD password, counsel’s computer “cyberattack”).
JRW moved for sanctions after continued alleged deficiencies; the court warned dismissal could follow if noncompliance continued and initially considered lesser sanctions.
Plaintiff failed to comply with subsequent discovery orders (March 28 and April 14, 2022); the court found willful, repeated violations, prejudice to JRW, and dismissed the action as a discovery sanction.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied for failure to show palpable error; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal was an abuse of discretion as a discovery sanction	Dismissal was disproportionate; plaintiff substantially complied and delays were excusable (move, SSD password, cyberattack)	Plaintiff wilfully and repeatedly refused discovery, caused prejudice and delay; lesser sanctions insufficient	Affirmed — court properly balanced applicable factors and dismissal was not an abuse of discretion
Whether denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion	Trial court erred in denying reconsideration of sanctions order	Reconsideration denied because plaintiff reargued same points and failed to show palpable error under MCR 2.119(F)(3)	Affirmed — plaintiff did not preserve a separate, persuasive argument on appeal and abandoned the issue

Woods v SLB Property Mgmt, LLC, 277 Mich App 622 (applies factors for severe discovery sanctions)
Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501 (trial courts must balance discovery-sanction factors and favor decisions on the merits)
Kalamazoo Oil Co v Boerman, 242 Mich App 75 (sanctions must be proportionate; court must explain reasons for drastic sanctions)
Traxler v Ford Motor Co, 227 Mich App 276 (severe sanctions appropriate for flagrant, wanton refusal to facilitate discovery)
Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372 (trial courts possess inherent authority to sanction, including dismissal)
Welch v J Walter Thompson USA, Inc, 187 Mich App 49 (willfulness for sanctions need not be malicious but must be conscious or intentional)